XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.computer.workshop   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-02-09 19:40, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 2/9/26 10:23 PM, Alan wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>> why is the upgrade $200?  What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that   
   >>>>>>>>> cost?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Nothing has to.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The question they ask (the rational people) is:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> "Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am   
   >>>>>>>> being offered?"   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That you get an ENTIRE system that works better (for YOU) than the   
   >>>>>> alternative.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But the $200 isn't for the entire system.  It's specifically to   
   >>>>> change from 256 GB to 512 GB.  Your answer is avoiding the point,   
   >>>>> that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit included,   
   >>>>> would warrant.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's exactly the POINT.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The question a rational person asks is:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?"   
   >>>   
   >>> The answer a rational person has is "no", though.   
   >>   
   >> And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree with you.   
   >   
   >   
   > Not so.  They do agree with me, they're just willing to pay it because   
   > they want a Mac that much.  They have no choice.  Price gouging.   
      
   The absolutely DO have a choice. There are few if any tasks you can do   
   on a Mac that you can't do on a Windows PC.   
      
   Ergo, they have a choice.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AppleCare if you pay extra?  Nonstandard interface ports   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they claim are better 'cause they say so?  What a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joke.  What a total cult.  And you're the ringleader.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Apple Desktop Bus)?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I actually have to concede something here.  The   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> EU forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> downgrade to make them compatible with other manufacturers'   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> chargers. So, in that respect, I actually think Apple was   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, albeit for the function of charging the device,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> not using it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> personal computer standard.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Macs with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> to one port.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Macs that used a far superior open standard called NuBus.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> USB: an open standard first widely available on the original   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> iMac.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> introduction.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Etc.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I would mostly not challenge those points.  I would point out   
   >>>>>>>>>>> that the proprietary nature of some of these features   
   >>>>>>>>>>> supports the idea that Apple trends nonstandard, though.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Everything else was an open standard.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.  In   
   >>>>>>>>> practice, they were Apple proprietary.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No...dude:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously,   
   >>>>>>>> objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen   
   >>>>>>>> for IBM-style PCs.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting   
   >>>>>>> Thunderbolt?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open standards   
   >>>>>> (caveat ADB).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets   
   >>>>> super obscure.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> NuBus was a huge step over ISA.   
   >>>   
   >>> For Apple.   
   >>   
   >> For anyone who chose to use it.   
   >>   
   >> ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring.   
   >>   
   >> IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s.   
   >>   
   >> Must I really go on?   
   >   
   >   
   > You could name another major manufacturer which actually used it.   
      
   How would that change that:   
      
   1. It was a standard and NOT proprietary, and   
      
   2. That it was superior to ISA?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>> Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, and   
   >>>> Sony made use of it as well as Apple...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...and Acer...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...and HP...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...Lenovo...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...Asus...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those brands'   
   >>> junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.  So, I will take   
   >>> your word and concede.   
   >>   
   >> It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you now   
   >> concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.   
   >   
   >   
   > I actually wasn't all that wrong, if the other manufacturers using it   
   > were limited to those brands, PC OEMs can be very proprietary in their   
   > designs, particularly of laptops.   
   >   
      
   You literally just conceded your ignorance.   
      
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> So asked to name an application you actually use that's   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> better than the macOS equivalent...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> ...you surrendered.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Got it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> point. It's not a surrender.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Then name an app.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Just ONE app that you actually use.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Audacious.  It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> And available for macOS:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Terminal: brew install audacious.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> So your argument is that this app is better than itself?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Next!   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Ah, but you had to use the terminal.  So now every goofy nerd   
   >>>>>>> using a Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who   
   >>>>>>> actually knows shit, are?  Heh.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> So what?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The issue was how the software WORKS.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I don't dispute that you can do some significant things with macOS   
   >>>>> as a Unix flavor.  But it would be cumbersome, to me, when I could   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)